Displays Antigravity CLI usage and available commands so users can learn how to operate the CLI.
Show Antigravity CLI help output
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "Help"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds the useful disambiguation that the output is the Antigravity CLI's help text rather than this server's own help, but says nothing about output format, size, or whether it accepts topic arguments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ("Antigravity CLI") is placed before the noun it modifies. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, non-destructive informational tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description says enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only conceivable addition would be noting the return is plain text, which is a negligible gap at this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related claims are made or needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Show ... help output") scoped to "Antigravity CLI," which tells an agent exactly what it produces. It does not differentiate itself from nearby utility siblings such as version, health, or ping, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool's nature — an agent calls help when it needs the CLI's own documentation — but the description states no explicit when-to-use condition and never names an alternative such as version or ping for related informational needs. Adequate but inference-dependent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.